Chiming in on a couple of points. I believe the interpretation is that the bread must be wheat and unleavened, not some other grain, but that canon law does not prevent the use of other substances in the bread, such as molasses as mentioned above. (I prefer the flat hosts because with the bread some churches are now making, you have to be sure to eat every crumb and they are crumbly.)
Also, priests do take some wine as part of the ceremony, but in the case of an alcoholic, perhaps they can limit intake to just a taste. Another eucharistic minister can finish what is not taken by those receiving wine.
Sorry, you are incorrect. Again from the Canon Law
“§2 The bread must be wheaten only, and recently made, so that there is no danger of corruption.” That is interpreted as meaning wheat flour (white or whole wheat) and water. Nothing else. no salt, sugar, oats …anything.
When I read the article, it seemed to me that there was no response or repesentation of the church’s side, only a excerpt from a letter. Were alternatives offered - such as receiving the wine alone? I also think that there might be a substitute for the gluten host, but it is not a rice cake. If so, what was the familys reaction to the alternative? Did the family insist on using only a rice cake wafer? I am not sure if the priest or parish can respond to a matter like this - are discussions like this protected? And who are the many catholics that the author refers to? If the priest failed to offer an alernative, that would be an abomination and it is hard to imagine that his superiors would back up a such hard line when there is a physical illness involvd. If the family failed to accept an achievable alternative - well, that is their choice but don’t criticize the church for forcing them out.
You know waht? I’ll ask my dad, since he’s a Eucharistic Minister.
Once, someone made the kind of unleavened bread that they used to use around Jesus’s time. It was pretty sticky, if I remember correctly (very heavy and paste like).
If you ask me, the Catholic church has gone down hill since John XXIII died.
some groups have a “bread breaking” ceremony involving bread (molasses or otherwise) that is not consecrated, but shared as a sign of community.
some groups (especially on retreats…college groups…etc…) don’t necessarily place a high emphasis on that particular Canon Law . To be honest, I don’t have a real hard problem with that kind of bread form in a retreat or small communal situation…However I do understand the canon law and don’t get into much of a tizzy over it…
The agape or love feast was an early church custom that hangs about halfway between a communion service and a church supper. A part of it is the sharing of (unconsecrated but blessed) bread and wine in token of the love shared between Christians as exemplified by a common meal “in family” (so to speak).
It is, so I’m told, extremely common for an Orthodox priest to bless bread and wine for the parishioners to take home – differentiated completely from their receiving of communion.
A number of faith communities around the world have revived the agape over the last few decades, with what success, to what extent, and in what denominations I do not have data.
But this may be the explanation for the “molassey” bread mentioned.
I was RC for 25 years before I (in my view) ‘saw the light’, became a born-again atheist and welcomed thought and reason into my life. This kind of thing is one of the main reasons I decided enough is enough. As if anyone can have the faintest idea what sort of bread Jesus used. And as if it matters. Sorry, but I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I respect the believer, and I respect his right to believe whatever he wants. But I can’t respect the belief itself, and I don’t.
Answers to the OP:
No good reason worth the name.
Yes, you are required to take communion at least once per year as part of your ‘minimum obligation’ to the church. Yes, this ruling bars her from the ‘True’ faith. Just wafer, just wine, or both are all acceptable. For rules pertaining to the wine, see other posts.
Jesus was a Jew…I don’t think it’s that big of a stretch to say that any bread he would use in a supper/ceremony would be unleavened bread…So yes we DO have an idea of what bread Jesus used…your wisecrack about Catholicism lacking thought and reason not withstanding…
Also, Catholics are supposed to go to mass and recieve communion every Sunday and on every Holy Day of Obligation. There is no “once a year minimum” that I’ve ever heard of.
But I have heard (from a priest, at least) that the Catholics in Asia use rice instead of wheat. Is that canon law Church wide or only U.S. that y’all are quoting?
Canon Laws are church wide. I’m not familiar with any rice based eucharist (not saying it doesn’t happen)…but AFAIK it would not be recognized by church teaching as a valid element.
BTW…found an interesting link via google about some of this…
“The Church obliges the faithful ‘to take part in the Divine Liturgy on Sundays and feast days’ and, prepared by the sacrament of Reconciliation, to receive the Eucharist at least once a year, if possible during the Easter season.[OE 15; CIC, can. 920.] But the Church strongly encourages the faithful to receive the holy Eucharist on Sundays and feast days, or more often still, even daily.”
Beagledave said
This was definitely at Mass that the non-traditional bread was used. I’ve seen it at other churches too which are more “non-traditional” (inclusive language to a fault, etc.)
Well, I asked my father.
According to him, in case of an allergy, the Bishop offers a dispansention (sp?) for the person to receive a different type of host. He said that there is a woman in the choir who is allergic, and they obtain special hosts made for the purpose of people who are allergic to wheat.
So obviously, the Canon Law is more political crap from the Vatican.
I’m a Catholic, but a very liberal one. I think the church is in need of some SERIOUS reform. (Many of the laws we think are there for religious reasons are usually political-the place of women and celibacy, for example.)
“THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH & CELIAC DISEASE The Roman Catholic Church has given an official mandate in regard to celiac disease and the Eucharist or Holy Communion. The Church has stated that all hosts must be made with ingredients that contain some gluten. Only LOW GLUTEN Hosts are allowed for the celiac, NOT gluten free. The church states gluten must be present to make bread. This is unsafe for celiacs, no matter what the level of gluten it causes us damage, though a low level may not produce symptoms in some celiacs. There is the option of receiving Holy Communion by the use of The Precious Blood only (wine), this is fine and acceptable as long as the wine has not been intinctured with particles of the Host (having the Host dipped or small pieces broken into the wine). For a Celiac to be totally safe, he or she would have to have their own Chalice (cup) to receive from which can be difficult to arrange depending on the parish and on the presiding priest. To use the “low” gluten host material one needs to obtain a dispensation from the Bishop of their diocese and provide the Bishop with medical information to “prove” the need for special bread/host.”
It still sounds pretty silly to me. After all, what’s important-the bread, or Christ’s spirit? Seems to me the priest could use a hamburger bun or a tomato in an emergency.
I don’t remember reading that Jesus was a picky eater.
There is the option of receiving Holy Communion by the use of The Precious Blood only (wine), this is fine and acceptable as long as the wine has not been intinctured with particles of the Host (having the Host dipped or small pieces broken into the wine). For a Celiac to be totally safe, he or she would have to have their own Chalice (cup) to receive from which can be difficult to arrange depending on the parish and on the presiding priest. To use the “low” gluten host material one needs to obtain a dispensation from the Bishop of their diocese and provide the Bishop with medical information to “prove” the need for special bread/host."
This is, in fact, what Mrs. Cal heard on the bradcast – the parents were concerned about particles of the host falling into the wine. It sounded odd at the time, but more reasonable in light of the above. If the case is as beagledave suggested, it still sounds as if someone is not being sufficiently accommodating, even within the confines of Canon Law.
